AMD has finally gone into full production with a new mask spin of their Phenom processor now dubbed the Phenom X4. The new flagship 2.5GHz Phenom X4 9850 is representative of a new revision of the native quad-core Phenom silicon that resolves the well known TLB errata. Quad-core Phenom X4 processors based on the new B3 revision silicon should be hitting store shelves in the not too distant future. In addition to resolving the TLB bug, AMD is also unveiling some higher clocked Phenoms and tri-core and low-power models too.
We've got AMD's latest and greatest Phenom processor, the Phenom X4 9850, on the test bench and have our findings posted for you all right here...
AMD Phenom X4 9850 B3 Revision
***** Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted. *****
It's a shame they need to pump 125W through it. They didn't have to do that on the X2 line until the 6000 iirc, and that's clocked at 3.0Ghz. It seems AMD has already reached the limits with Phenom technology. If they come out with a 9950, it'll be 2.6ghz by their naming scheme and even that's not anything powerful.
Intel is indeed moving by leaps and bounds over AMD. Let's just hope the prices are reasonable on the Intel front.
After reading the author's article I am left with the question of why he elected to compare the AMD 9850 revision B3 with the Intel Q6600?
My puzzlement arises from testing a 9850 B3 which runs at 2.5 ghz and is a current techhnology i.e. March 2008 revision against an Intel Q6600 which runs at 2.4ghz and has been shipping since January, 2007. I would like to see the comparison be made with the Intel Q9300 which is the current model and also runs at 2.5ghz. This test would be a fairer assessment of the relative merits of the two processors.
I would assume the reason they chose to compare the performance of the 9850 against that of the Q6600 was because they probably didn't have a Q9300 on hand for comparison. The Q6600 would be the next closest chip in Intel's lineup to the 9850. Although the performance of the 9850 was comparable to that of the Q6600, taking into account the faster FSB speed of the Q9300, I presume it would have the upper hand. The Q6600 already had a substantial edge on power consumption, therefore the difference would only be that much more pronounced with the 45nm Q9300.
Plus, this AMD chip is ro retail around $230-$250, which is where the Q6600 is priced too. The Q9300 is a little bit more, around $280-$300.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2013 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms